:00:43. > :00:46.Politics. A momentous week for Labour, the
:00:46. > :00:49.unions and the debate over party funding. But with talks between the
:00:50. > :00:53.parties stalled on how to fix the role of money in politics, we'll
:00:53. > :00:59.bring Tory and Labour big hitters together to see if we can help them
:01:00. > :01:04.make progress. Don't hold your breath!
:01:04. > :01:07.It is hot out there. But you cannot blame the heat wave on global
:01:07. > :01:15.warming. For the past few years, temperatures have stopped
:01:15. > :01:19.increasing. So has climate change. , or is it time to think again? We
:01:19. > :01:27.will be speaking to the dip them, Ed Davey.
:01:27. > :01:33.Yet another existential prize for the NHS, with and official report
:01:33. > :01:39.about to report 13,000 needless deaths. We will look at the politics
:01:39. > :01:42.of NHS failure. In London this week, the Mayor has
:01:42. > :01:49.unveiled his road plan for London, but where is the money coming from
:01:49. > :01:52.and should the plan be taken seriously?
:01:52. > :01:56.All that and the Silly Mid On, Fine Leg and Deep Extra Cover of
:01:56. > :02:04.political punditry. I speak of course of Janan Ganesh, Nick Watt
:02:04. > :02:07.and - she's back! Again! - Isabel Oakeshott. Three hacks who know the
:02:07. > :02:10.difference between an Ed Miliband googly and a body-line delivery from
:02:10. > :02:15.Len McCluskey. There'll be tweeting throughout the programme and sifting
:02:15. > :02:21.the political ashes for nuggets of truth, so you don't have to.
:02:21. > :02:27.Welcome. The NHS hits the front pages of the Sunday papers again,
:02:27. > :02:35.and not in a good way. There are shocking details from a report from
:02:35. > :02:43.the health service's medical director, Bruce Kayo -- Bruce Keogh,
:02:43. > :02:46.revealing that 13,000 patients have died needlessly. We will be speaking
:02:46. > :02:53.to the former Shadow Health Secretary, Andy Burnham. He has been
:02:53. > :02:58.in the firing line on the issue on Sky this morning. I fully support
:02:58. > :03:02.it, and I look forward to its conclusions. I will work with the
:03:02. > :03:06.government on it. What disappoints me is the way the Conservative Party
:03:06. > :03:12.are using these things for party political advantage. As I said at
:03:12. > :03:15.the beginning, these problems were identified before the last
:03:15. > :03:23.election. They have carried on since. In some cases they have got
:03:23. > :03:27.worse. In all cases, A&E has got significantly worse at these 14
:03:27. > :03:33.hospitals. In some cases, the mortality rate has got worse at
:03:33. > :03:38.these hospitals. So, Isabel, there is Andy Burnham. He says we should
:03:38. > :03:43.take the party politics out of it. Is he in trouble? I think Andy
:03:43. > :03:47.Burnham feels under a great deal of pressure under this. He also feels
:03:48. > :03:52.really wronged. I spent quite a lot of time talking to Andy in the House
:03:52. > :03:55.of Commons this week, and I know he feels passionately that he did the
:03:55. > :03:59.right wing as Health Secretary. We did a story in the Sunday Times
:03:59. > :04:03.today, which shows the official advice that Andy Burnham received in
:04:03. > :04:10.the wake of the Stafford Hospital crisis, which prompted a wider
:04:10. > :04:14.review reported this week. His officials told him he didn't really
:04:15. > :04:20.need to do anything more about it. He was told he didn't need a public
:04:20. > :04:25.enquiry or a private enquiry, so he overruled that advice. So he is very
:04:25. > :04:31.passionate. You could see he was angry in that interview. So Mid
:04:31. > :04:35.Staffordshire is not a one off. It is far more extensive. And the
:04:35. > :04:40.problem of the performance of the NHS with weekdays compared to
:04:40. > :04:45.weekends is more of a problem, I think. You are more likely to die at
:04:45. > :04:50.the weekends. Considerably more likely. There is now a certain
:04:50. > :04:54.degree of availability of data and openness in the NHS, which allows
:04:54. > :05:00.things like this report to come to light. You have organisations like
:05:00. > :05:03.Doctor Foster, and people like Bruce Keogh. On the Andy Burnham
:05:03. > :05:09.question, I think Isabel is right that it is not obvious he was
:05:09. > :05:13.culpable. But being in government at that time, and presiding over it,
:05:13. > :05:16.you do become politically vulnerable. This is something that
:05:16. > :05:20.affects all recently deposed government. This happened with the
:05:20. > :05:24.Tories in 97. They were still paying the political price for things that
:05:24. > :05:29.went wrong under John Major eight years later. What about the things
:05:29. > :05:33.that went wrong? Andy Burnham says it has got worse under this
:05:33. > :05:40.government. A lot of it happened when money was being thrown at the
:05:40. > :05:44.NHS. Labour was always going to enjoy a lead over the NHS, and the
:05:44. > :05:49.best the Conservatives could do was neutralise it. If they are in any
:05:49. > :05:53.way able to show that the last government created a sort of
:05:53. > :06:00.unfeeling, bureaucratic NHS, where the managers were more interested in
:06:00. > :06:04.targets than patience, then that is very configure it -- very important
:06:04. > :06:08.for the Conservatives. Andy Burnham is very deeply and passionately
:06:08. > :06:12.committed to the NHS. He was Health Secretary at the end of the last
:06:12. > :06:15.government, and the targets were set up before he was the Secretary of
:06:15. > :06:20.State. That report is published this week.
:06:20. > :06:24.It has been a big week for Ed Miliband. He spoke about union
:06:24. > :06:28.reform on Wednesday, and managed to shift the spotlight from the funding
:06:28. > :06:33.of the Labour Party to the funding of all political parties. Here's the
:06:33. > :06:37.story so far. It has been a fortnight that has
:06:37. > :06:42.left Parliament and the people who write about it are grappling with
:06:42. > :06:46.some of the biggest issues in politics. Influence, power and
:06:46. > :06:51.money. Falkirk, in central Scotland. Last month, Weber was
:06:51. > :06:58.picking its candidate for the next election, after the sitting MP, Eric
:06:59. > :07:03.Joyce, was caught brawling in Parliament. -- Labour was picking.
:07:03. > :07:09.The candidate selection left Labour at odds with Unite. There were some
:07:09. > :07:13.issues around the Falkirk selection. The issues were that the
:07:13. > :07:17.Unite union tried to influence the selection process by signing up
:07:17. > :07:22.people as new members without their knowledge. As Labour HQ got wind of
:07:22. > :07:26.it, they put the local party into special measures and held an
:07:26. > :07:33.investigation. But the resulting report has been kept under wraps.
:07:33. > :07:37.The Falkirk saga was a nightmarish trap for Ed Miliband. He got the
:07:37. > :07:42.leadership on the back of the significant union endorsements over
:07:42. > :07:46.his brother. The whole issue of the relationship between the party and
:07:46. > :07:52.the unions remains one that is potentially divisive and electorally
:07:52. > :08:00.problematic. Here it was, all coming together in a single story. Cue a
:08:00. > :08:06.media frenzy. One that had wavered Cameron rubbing his hands with glee
:08:06. > :08:13.at PMQs. We have the press release, Mr Speaker, how Unite plans to
:08:13. > :08:18.change the Labour Party! It was very entertaining, because every question
:08:18. > :08:21.managed to come back to Len McCluskey. I was half expecting
:08:21. > :08:28.David Cameron to blame people crashing out of Wimbledon on Len
:08:28. > :08:33.McCluskey! Not many laughs in Ed Miliband's Commons office as they
:08:33. > :08:39.tried to contain the damage. In the coming days, Labour's general
:08:39. > :08:44.campaign manager, Tom Watson, who had close links to Unite, resigned.
:08:44. > :08:49.Then, the fightback. It began on Monday this week, when Ed Miliband
:08:49. > :08:53.met Labour MPs. Walking down the corridor, you could hear lots of
:08:53. > :08:58.voices booming out. You could hear Chris Bryant, and another MP saying
:08:58. > :09:03.he had fought all his life for the unions. Miliband turned round and
:09:03. > :09:10.said he was angry about Falkirk and wanted to see change. The big speech
:09:11. > :09:15.came on Tuesday. I do not want any individual to be paying money to the
:09:15. > :09:20.Labour Party in affiliation feels unless they have deliberately chosen
:09:20. > :09:24.to do so. He was announcing the end of the system where union members
:09:24. > :09:31.automatically donate �3 of their dues to Labour. In future, they will
:09:31. > :09:38.have lawn -- to opt in. A big gamble, because it could cost the
:09:38. > :09:42.party millions. But it seems to pay off. Ed Miliband acted decisively.
:09:42. > :09:46.He got back on the front foot. meant the Labour leader could talk
:09:46. > :09:52.about the funding of all parties when he met David Cameron for a PMQs
:09:52. > :09:58.rematch. 6p a week in affiliation fees from ordinary people up and
:09:58. > :10:04.down this country. That is against a party funded by a few millionaires
:10:04. > :10:09.at the top! I am willing, as I have said before, to have a �5,000 limit
:10:09. > :10:14.on donations from trade unions, businesses and individuals. Is he
:10:14. > :10:19.willing to do that? No, he said, because that would require state
:10:19. > :10:26.funding for all parties. All of this was the subject of much discussion
:10:26. > :10:31.this weekend at the annual Durham miner's Gala. This was not just an
:10:31. > :10:38.issue for left wing activists. wider situation is for all to
:10:38. > :10:42.consider. How much are we willing to pay for democratic politics? Like I
:10:42. > :10:49.said, the big issues in modern politics - influence, power and
:10:49. > :10:54.money. Transport Secretary, Patrick
:10:54. > :11:03.McLoughlin, and the shadow leader of the house, Andrea Eagle, join me to
:11:03. > :11:10.go Head To Head. Angela Eagle, Labour's relationship
:11:10. > :11:16.with the unions. Unite say Labour's funding could drop by 90%. Are you
:11:16. > :11:20.willing to take that hit? Miliband, in making the speech that
:11:20. > :11:25.he made, saying people should make a positive decision to have their
:11:25. > :11:31.affiliations to the party endorsed by them, does mean that we are
:11:31. > :11:34.willing to take the hit. We are willing -- we are going to be
:11:34. > :11:39.campaigning to recreate the Labour Party as a mass party, to give it
:11:39. > :11:47.back to the people. We want to give politics back to the people. We
:11:47. > :11:50.cannot have political parties funded by small, very which donors, like
:11:50. > :11:54.the Conservative Party. Patrick McLoughlin, the Labour Party is
:11:54. > :11:59.prepared to take a hit on a traditional area of its funding.
:11:59. > :12:03.What sacrifice are you prepared to make? We are abiding by the party
:12:03. > :12:06.funding rules brought in by the last government. Most of the trade union
:12:06. > :12:15.funding that goes to the Labour Party is actually not given by its
:12:15. > :12:19.membership. When I was a Parliamentary candidate, my
:12:19. > :12:23.association after the NUM for a contribution. They were told that it
:12:23. > :12:31.couldn't be given because I was not propagating the Labour Party's
:12:31. > :12:37.ideas. Now the -- now that Len McCluskey is saying 90% of people
:12:37. > :12:46.will not opt in shows that this was money almost by coercion. They have
:12:46. > :12:52.had big donations as well. I will come back to you on a minute on your
:12:52. > :12:58.sacrifice, because I notice you didn't answer my question. You are
:12:58. > :13:03.going to have opting in, but the unions will still have huge funds,
:13:03. > :13:07.and they will still give you a shed load of money come the election.
:13:07. > :13:11.is up to each trade union to decide what they will do with their
:13:11. > :13:15.political funds. There are many unions who are not affiliated to the
:13:15. > :13:20.party and don't give their political fund monies to the Labour Party, but
:13:20. > :13:27.use them for more general campaigning. The issue is we have
:13:27. > :13:34.seen a Conservative Party 50% funded by hedge fund owners. They have
:13:34. > :13:42.given a tax fun -- a tax cut to millionaires. We have just seen a
:13:42. > :13:47.�145 million cut in taxes for hedge fund owners. Let me get a reaction.
:13:47. > :13:51.Patrick McLoughlin, what do you say to that? People will be paying more
:13:51. > :13:56.in tax under this government than they did under the last government.
:13:56. > :14:00.The last government had a top rate of tax of 50% for one month. They
:14:00. > :14:04.will be playing a higher rate under the entire period of this
:14:04. > :14:08.government. Nobody in the Conservative Party buys influence.
:14:08. > :14:17.It is clear you buy influence in the Labour Party. It is the unions who
:14:17. > :14:24.put Ed Miliband in the position he is in now. Patrick, let's just take
:14:24. > :14:30.this very narrow point about the �145 million tax cut to hedge fund
:14:30. > :14:35.owners. They have given �20 million in donations to the Conservative
:14:35. > :14:42.Party in the last few years. They have now been given �145 million
:14:42. > :14:46.extra by the Chancellor. They cannot buy influence. If anyone has given
:14:46. > :14:52.tax advice, it has been given by the Labour Party by their big donors,
:14:52. > :14:56.who told one of their donors how best to donate to the Labour Party.
:14:56. > :15:06.Let's be absolutely clear about this - we cannot afford to start turning
:15:06. > :15:07.
:15:07. > :15:14.to the taxpayer. It is clear the unions have influence in the Labour
:15:14. > :15:24.Party, but for you to deny that rich people have no influence, that just
:15:24. > :15:34.
:15:34. > :15:36.doesn't sound credible, does it? Let me give you some examples, Adrian
:15:36. > :15:38.Beecroft and Anthony Bamford have given your parting millions of
:15:38. > :15:42.pounds and they get to write reports that determine your party's policy.
:15:42. > :15:46.They get to contribute as everybody gets to contribute. Adrian Beecroft
:15:46. > :15:55.got to write a report in which he said we should abolish maternity
:15:55. > :16:04.rights and abolish rights at work. I am proud... They didn't object to
:16:04. > :16:07.that. They have put a lot of that into effect. Under your system, the
:16:07. > :16:12.unions will still have a disproportionate role in choosing
:16:12. > :16:17.your leader and that your party conferences. We have to work through
:16:17. > :16:21.that, but first we have to campaign among the 6.5 million members of
:16:21. > :16:27.trade unions to get them to join the party individually. We want to give
:16:27. > :16:32.politics back to the people, recreate mass politics. We have a
:16:32. > :16:39.situation where there are more people saying they follow the Jedi
:16:39. > :16:45.religion than members of the Conservative party. We had to
:16:45. > :16:50.recreate mass membership parties. might not be that easy. Patrick
:16:50. > :16:54.McLoughlin? We need to widen the base of political parties, I think
:16:54. > :16:59.that is the right way to go. We shouldn't be coming to the taxpayer
:16:59. > :17:04.for more and saying that somehow these trade unions and members of
:17:04. > :17:10.Unite are somehow supporters of the Labour Party. There are Unite
:17:10. > :17:16.members who vote for the Tories and the Liberal Democrat party. We have
:17:16. > :17:22.put millions of pounds of funding... Will you accept the
:17:22. > :17:28.change in legislation? I haven't even seen the legislation. There is
:17:28. > :17:33.a bill next week, let's do it. are not talking about political
:17:33. > :17:38.funding, there are many trade unions that are not involved in the Labour
:17:39. > :17:45.Party. You clean up your funding, we are cleaning up hours. Are you
:17:45. > :17:51.saying that the disproportionate union influence, the special
:17:51. > :17:56.position at the union conference and in choosing your leader, that that
:17:56. > :17:59.could go? In due course, we have to look at the implications of what Ed
:18:00. > :18:05.Miliband has announced. That is what Ray Collins, who has been appointed
:18:05. > :18:11.to look at the details of this, we'll look at. This is a sea change
:18:11. > :18:18.in politics, we are giving politics back to ordinary people. Patrick
:18:18. > :18:23.McLoughlin, what do you think of a cap on individual and institutional
:18:23. > :18:29.donors? I think we need to look at that. We have said we are open to
:18:29. > :18:36.that, it depends on what sort of level the cap comes in. We have got
:18:36. > :18:43.to, everyone, try to get more people donating to the party. What about a
:18:43. > :18:47.cap? It is something we would consider. We have said we are in
:18:47. > :18:56.favour of a �5,000 carp. The Conservatives will not go below
:18:56. > :19:04.50,000. They have 250 donors that have pledged to give 50,000 a year.
:19:04. > :19:10.Would Unite not be able to give more than �5,000? That is what the party
:19:10. > :19:18.have talked about. So come the election campaign, Unite can only
:19:18. > :19:24.give you 5000 quid? The Conservative party are raising millions of pounds
:19:24. > :19:32.and having dodgy donor dinners in Downing Street as a reward. That is
:19:32. > :19:36.a nice alliteration. What is wrong with a cap of �5,000? That would
:19:36. > :19:41.mean, and the Kelly report says this, anything under 10,000 would
:19:41. > :19:46.need a contribution from the taxpayer. If you carry on spending
:19:46. > :19:51.the money both of you spend at elections, you could spend less.
:19:51. > :19:57.That is something I would be open for discussion about. One quick
:19:57. > :20:01.question, Lynton Crosby is the big election drew Ruta David Cameron, he
:20:02. > :20:06.has had links with the tobacco lobby, your Government has changed
:20:06. > :20:12.its policy on tobacco, should he stepped down given those links with
:20:12. > :20:19.tobacco? Of course not, he works for the Conservative party, he does not
:20:19. > :20:23.lobby Conservative party. Has he talked to Lynton Crosby about
:20:23. > :20:28.tobacco? I don't know their conversations but he has said in the
:20:28. > :20:37.House of Commons he has not talked to him about tobacco. We will leave
:20:37. > :20:40.it there. Now, are you ready for a puzzle?
:20:40. > :20:42.Well, here's one - can global warming be happening as expected if
:20:42. > :20:44.the world has stopped getting hotter? That's the brainteaser
:20:44. > :20:48.that's troubling scientists and which threatens to shatter the
:20:48. > :20:51.consensus over global warming. Global temperatures have risen by
:20:52. > :20:56.0.8 Celsius since the Industrial Revolution, but since the late 1990s
:20:56. > :21:01.they have stalled despite the fact emissions of greenhouse gases have
:21:01. > :21:04.continued at pace. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
:21:04. > :21:09.reached 400 parts per million for the first time earlier this year.
:21:10. > :21:13.This has led some climate scientists to question whether there could be
:21:13. > :21:20.something wrong with their models. One eminent German professor has
:21:20. > :21:24.said no far nobody has been able to provide a compelling answer to why
:21:25. > :21:29.climate change seems to be taking a break. The climate change Secretary
:21:29. > :21:33.Ed Davey has said this normal expression of scientific uncertainty
:21:33. > :21:39.is no reason to reconsider energy and climate change policies, even
:21:39. > :21:43.though his department says they are already adding �112 to annual
:21:43. > :21:48.household bills, a number which is set to rise. Speaking last month, he
:21:48. > :21:54.described people who cast doubt on the scientific consensus as
:21:54. > :22:01.crackpots vomit and warned the press not to give a campaigning platform
:22:01. > :22:11.to people who deny climate change is man-made. Ed Davey joins me now for
:22:11. > :22:13.
:22:13. > :22:17.the Sunday interview. Ed Davey, welcome. In a speech on
:22:17. > :22:22.June the 2nd, you said healthy scepticism is part of the scientific
:22:22. > :22:27.process, then later you said anybody who challenges the climate change
:22:27. > :22:30.consensus is a crackpot, so what is it? I think we should challenge
:22:30. > :22:35.science, and there is a healthy debate amongst climate change
:22:35. > :22:40.scientists, but the vast majority of climate change scientists believe
:22:40. > :22:50.that climate change is happening and that man-made activity is causing it
:22:50. > :23:24.
:23:24. > :23:27.so it is a tiny number of people who believe that it is not happening and
:23:27. > :23:29.that man is not responsible for it. I agree with President Obama in his
:23:29. > :23:32.recent speech when he said we don't need another meeting of the flat
:23:32. > :23:34.Earth Society, we need to get on and tackle climate change. Scientist who
:23:34. > :23:36.challenged the consensus, they are crackpots? I was referring to a
:23:36. > :23:39.particular issue. Of course we should have a debate, I'm not
:23:39. > :23:41.against that. You shed the news -- you said the newspapers should not
:23:41. > :23:44.publish the reviews. I think we need a more balanced debate, particularly
:23:44. > :23:46.when we saw an analysis of scientific papers, and of the
:23:46. > :23:48.scientists who expressed a view, of them 97% said climate change is
:23:48. > :23:52.happening and that it was human made. That survey has been
:23:52. > :23:57.substantially discredited. 35% of the abstracts were misclassified and
:23:57. > :24:05.they were classified to the pro-global warming side. The expert
:24:05. > :24:08.most quoted approvingly has disassociated himself and said it is
:24:08. > :24:14.not reliable. If you look at what the scientists are saying, take the
:24:14. > :24:19.cheap scientists Sir John Beddington, he said in his speech as
:24:19. > :24:28.he left that the evidence was unequivocal. The chief scientist to
:24:28. > :24:33.my department, Professor Sir David Mackay has the same view so we need
:24:33. > :24:42.to take action. Let's just imagine that the huge majority of scientists
:24:42. > :24:48.are wrong. Let's say that climate change deniers are right. Should we
:24:48. > :24:53.gamble? Even though most of the scientists dated happening? I say we
:24:53. > :24:57.take a cautious approach and I hope your viewers will ensure their
:24:57. > :25:02.houses against the chance of the fire burning their house down, I
:25:02. > :25:09.think given the risks of climate change are greater and with more
:25:09. > :25:14.devastating effects, we should invest in a little insurance policy.
:25:14. > :25:22.Look at this graph, this shows temperatures rising since 1980, it
:25:22. > :25:27.is a trend and we have flattened it out a little bit. It rises, and
:25:27. > :25:33.suddenly in around 1997 it plateaus. Isn't that a bit of a
:25:33. > :25:39.puzzle? Know, when you talk to people at the Met office, they
:25:39. > :25:43.expect in their models there will be short-term variation. In this
:25:43. > :25:48.century, if you took that longer, you will find at the beginning of
:25:49. > :25:57.the 20th century there was a plateau and there was a plateau in the
:25:57. > :26:04.1950s. Report says the real CO2 emission rising temperatures really
:26:04. > :26:09.clicked in after 1980. I'm afraid you are wrong. There is no Met
:26:09. > :26:13.Office model that predicted this plateau. You are wrong to suggest
:26:13. > :26:18.the climate change committee think it only started in 1980, that is
:26:18. > :26:22.simply not true. In terms of the most recent decade, let's remember,
:26:22. > :26:27.that was the warmest on record. Even if you look at the temperature
:26:27. > :26:32.analysis, that is pretty striking, but I think that is a very narrow
:26:32. > :26:35.way of looking at climate change science. You have got to look at
:26:36. > :26:44.things like the temperature of the sea because that is land surface
:26:44. > :26:49.temperature. The oceans continue to warm, sea levels have continued to
:26:49. > :26:54.rise. It is important because you are not showing the full picture.
:26:54. > :26:59.Ice caps are continuing to melt. still have a puzzle because this is
:26:59. > :27:07.the temperature, and here we have superimposed carbon dioxide going up
:27:07. > :27:15.in quantity. When you look at that, is it not clear there is at least a
:27:15. > :27:20.possibility that there is something of a disconnect now between CO2
:27:20. > :27:24.emissions and temperatures? If you had a longer time series, most
:27:24. > :27:32.scientists would say that is consistent with what we have seen
:27:32. > :27:41.previously. But the scientists cannot explain this disconnect.
:27:41. > :27:51.can actually... This is just to amplify the question, this is Doug
:27:51. > :27:56.
:27:57. > :28:00.and spoke to their leading scientist, and what they are saying
:28:00. > :28:05.is that you should not just look at surface temperature, you should look
:28:05. > :28:10.at the temperature of the oceans, at the level of the sea which is still
:28:10. > :28:14.rising, look at the ice caps, still melting, look at the increasing
:28:14. > :28:19.frequency of the severe weather events. If you look at one bit of
:28:19. > :28:23.information, which is what you are doing today, I'm afraid you are not
:28:23. > :28:30.seeing the full picture. When this plateau started to develop, the
:28:30. > :28:35.people who advise you, such as Phil Jones at the climate research unit,
:28:35. > :28:41.a world centre of climate science, he described the plateau as nonsense
:28:41. > :28:48.and stupid. The Met Office denied a plateau was even happening. That is
:28:48. > :28:52.why, as I said in my speech which you read out a few minutes ago, a
:28:52. > :28:58.healthy scepticism is good because climate science is incredibly
:28:58. > :29:02.complicated. It is new, innovative science so nobody, if you talk to
:29:02. > :29:07.the climate change scientists, none of them actually say we know
:29:07. > :29:11.everything for sure. Of course they don't. Few scientists say that, but
:29:11. > :29:16.the question is would you be prepared, is any Government prepared
:29:16. > :29:23.to take a gamble on the future of our planet when the vast majority of
:29:23. > :29:28.the science shows the climate change is happening? On this plateau, you
:29:28. > :29:32.said simulation shows this plateau happening, the Met Office shows
:29:32. > :29:37.non-. Scientists at the University of Hamburg, the world 's leading
:29:37. > :29:42.centre of climate science, they have looked at the climate models, they
:29:42. > :29:46.have run the simulations, and they produced a 15 year plateau in only
:29:46. > :29:56.2% of the simulations. They just don't happen on the models you
:29:56. > :30:01.
:30:02. > :30:07.depend on. Let me show you what the professor has said. I would like to
:30:07. > :30:12.see more of that, but since you just quoted Doctor Doug Smith of the Met
:30:12. > :30:19.Office, you came to a conclusion that the Met Office wouldn't agree
:30:19. > :30:24.with. I am not sure whether -- what the University of Hamburg thinks. We
:30:24. > :30:30.have to look at our models. No one is suggesting
:30:30. > :30:35.# Am not suggesting and climate change scientists are not suggesting
:30:35. > :30:43.that our models are perfect. You are ignoring all the things I am saying
:30:43. > :30:48.about the rising heat in our atmosphere, the ice caps, the Arctic
:30:48. > :30:53.and Antarctic, the rising sea levels, the extreme level event -
:30:53. > :31:00.why are you choosing to ignore that? I am concentrating on what the
:31:01. > :31:09.computer models are focusing on. The predicted ice melts didn't happen
:31:09. > :31:14.this year, other than normally. Professor Stork says that if there
:31:14. > :31:19.is a 20 year plateau, then we will need to have a fundamental
:31:19. > :31:22.re-examination of climate change policy. Not to abandon it, but to
:31:22. > :31:28.wonder whether we are doing it so quickly and in the way we are doing
:31:28. > :31:35.it. The Met are saying that this plateau could now continue until
:31:35. > :31:41.2017. That would be 20 years. If it is still a plateau in 20 years, will
:31:41. > :31:47.you re-evaluate the situation? re-evaluate our policy all along.
:31:47. > :31:57.The climate change science underlines the fact that the world
:31:57. > :31:59.
:31:59. > :32:03.is getting warmer, and that is uncontested. There is a debate, and
:32:03. > :32:09.quite a reasonable debate, on how quickly that is happening at all the
:32:09. > :32:14.aspects of it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take action. Not only can
:32:14. > :32:18.you take the insurance argument - if there is a risk, surely you should
:32:18. > :32:28.insure against it? But also, all the things we are doing to make homes
:32:28. > :32:28.
:32:28. > :32:38.warmer through better energy use, and I am speaking to the relevant
:32:38. > :32:45.minister from China today about what is happening there. There are many
:32:45. > :32:48.reasons for taking up our policies, such as avoiding pollution. A lot of
:32:48. > :32:53.our policies are no regrets. If you have actually cleaned up the
:32:53. > :33:03.energy, cleaned up the atmosphere, that is not to be regretted.
:33:03. > :33:04.
:33:04. > :33:11.your policies are hugely expensive. No, they are not. �400 billion is in
:33:11. > :33:14.the act. A number of climate scientists are not denying that CO2
:33:14. > :33:20.emissions can increase the temperature. What they want to look
:33:20. > :33:24.at a game is whether it leads to such a quick and large rise in
:33:24. > :33:33.temperatures that the IPCC has predicted. They predicted 3% for
:33:33. > :33:38.this century. Professor Peers Foster at Leeds University, said that the
:33:38. > :33:44.higher temperatures are now unlikely. A professor at Oxford says
:33:44. > :33:48.that higher temperatures now look iffy. At the Georgia Institute of
:33:48. > :33:54.technology, the professor says temperatures could stay flat for
:33:54. > :33:59.another decade or two. If it is not quite working out, as we originally
:33:59. > :34:02.thought, do you not want to step back and reconsider policy? If our
:34:03. > :34:07.policies were as expensive as you suggested, we would want to look at
:34:07. > :34:13.them. Look at the figure you gave the top of the programme. You said
:34:13. > :34:19.our policies are putting �112 on peoples bills. Let's look at that.
:34:19. > :34:24.The vast majority of that �112 is tackling fuel poverty, and making
:34:24. > :34:29.people's homes warmer. That is no regrets, because it reduces energy
:34:29. > :34:38.bills long term. A lot of the policies we are doing we should do
:34:38. > :34:43.anyway. Only a small part of that 112 you mentioned, is in subsidising
:34:43. > :34:48.renewable and low-carbon energies. That is why we are taking very
:34:49. > :34:55.rational, sensible, moderate approaches to this. It may well be
:34:55. > :34:58.that climate change will not go in the central forecasts. If you look
:34:58. > :35:02.at other models of all the scientists you talked about, they
:35:02. > :35:09.believe you have a range of scenarios, just as you do if you
:35:09. > :35:12.forecast inflation or growth. point I am putting to you is that a
:35:12. > :35:18.lot of climate scientists are saying that the lower range is now more
:35:18. > :35:24.likely than the higher range. If temperatures were to rise by one
:35:24. > :35:28.Celsius, what would be the consequences for Britain? We have
:35:28. > :35:34.seen some of the consequences if you talk to farmers, and the money we
:35:34. > :35:43.are spending on flooding. You cannot absolutely proved that is down to
:35:43. > :35:49.climate change, but many people think it is. The central forecast
:35:49. > :35:53.you proceeded on has been the IPCC central forecast of an almost 3%
:35:53. > :35:58.rise in temperatures. If it turned out, and some climate scientists are
:35:58. > :36:05.now saying it is only going to be 1%, what would be the effect on
:36:05. > :36:12.Britain? The 1% you have talked about is helped by a tiny minority
:36:12. > :36:16.of scientists. The vast majority of scientists who advised us and other
:36:16. > :36:21.countries, such as President Obama, are worried that we are not going to
:36:21. > :36:25.hit the two degrees target that we said we needed to stay within. All
:36:25. > :36:29.of the projections you are talking about go above that. If we kept it
:36:29. > :36:35.to two degrees, that would be a real step forward, and we would reduce
:36:35. > :36:40.the amount of damage. If you are serious government, looking at the
:36:40. > :36:45.science in an objective, neutral way, you would take action. You
:36:45. > :36:51.wouldn't gamble on our children's future and our grandchildren's
:36:51. > :36:54.future. That would be irresponsible. Nor would you rush to spend �100
:36:54. > :37:01.billion on wind power. You would perhaps, if you felt the champ
:37:01. > :37:05.bitches were not going to be as aggressive as the IPCC, you would
:37:05. > :37:09.take time to develop carbon storage. You would take time to develop
:37:09. > :37:17.proper battery storage, so that wind power would be more effective.
:37:17. > :37:22.Instead, on the basis of forecasts that may prove to be wrong, you
:37:22. > :37:29.persist with a highly expensive programme. I dispute this is as
:37:29. > :37:32.costly as you are saying. We are developing carbon caps. It. We are
:37:32. > :37:36.developing energy storage technologies, not just batteries. We
:37:36. > :37:41.are looking at water and hydrogen technology, so we can store wind
:37:41. > :37:47.power when it is not needed on the grid. We have a whole range of
:37:47. > :37:57.policies. The idea we are simply about wind is nonsense. We're about
:37:57. > :38:02.tidal, wave, solar, nuclear as well as wind. If the plateau is still
:38:02. > :38:06.there by 2020, what will you say to me? I still think the evidence
:38:06. > :38:11.suggests, if you look at the rising heat in the oceans, which you have
:38:11. > :38:16.failed talk about today. If you look at the ice caps, which you have
:38:16. > :38:21.failed to talk about today. You asked me one question about the
:38:21. > :38:25.temperature. I am saying you take a very narrow approach. Minister, we
:38:25. > :38:30.have run out of time. Come back in the autumn and we will talk about
:38:30. > :38:35.the oceans and the ice caps. It is coming up to 11:30am. Coming
:38:35. > :38:45.up, I will be looking at The Week Ahead with our political panel.
:38:45. > :38:51.
:38:51. > :38:56.Until then, the Sunday Politics later, as the Mayor launches his
:38:56. > :39:01.road plan for London, we will be asking his transport deputy how they
:39:01. > :39:06.plan to pay for it all. Joining me, Bob Neill, Conservative MP for
:39:06. > :39:11.Bromley and Chislehurst who is a Conservative Party vice-chair, and
:39:11. > :39:15.Clyde said, Shadow Minister for Sport and Labour MP for Eltham.
:39:15. > :39:21.A rout over alleged malpractice and entry is in Falkirk between the
:39:21. > :39:25.Labour leader, Ed Miliband, and Unite General Secretary, Len
:39:25. > :39:29.McCluskey continues. Bob, you entered the fray this week when you
:39:29. > :39:34.wrote to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe this week about two London
:39:34. > :39:39.constituencies. Why did you write to him? They appear on the same hit
:39:39. > :39:44.list of constituencies that Unite had, which include Falkirk, which
:39:44. > :39:49.the Labour Party have called the police into look at potential
:39:49. > :39:56.irregularities. It is clear from documents that have been leaked that
:39:56. > :40:00.there is an orchestrated campaign - not my words - and Falkirk was part
:40:00. > :40:06.of it. These two London constituencies also part of it. A
:40:06. > :40:12.Conservative MP wrote to the Labour Party to make sure that nothing has
:40:12. > :40:17.gone untoward in London. That sounds like a fishing expedition, if you
:40:17. > :40:23.don't mind me saying. If no laws have been broken, what proof do you
:40:23. > :40:26.have that in regularity and illegality has happened? If the same
:40:26. > :40:32.things happened in Falkirk as elsewhere... So you haven't any
:40:32. > :40:37.evidence? It is believed that the same tactics are being applied.
:40:37. > :40:41.Labour in London has talked about an orchestrated campaign. What happens
:40:41. > :40:45.if people are being signed up to the Labour Party without their
:40:45. > :40:50.knowledge? That can involve the falsification of the document, which
:40:50. > :40:57.is a criminal offence. We know Labour Party members in Ilford North
:40:57. > :41:02.were being signed up - or Unite members in Ilford North, were being
:41:02. > :41:06.signed up to the Labour Party. your knowledge, no law has been
:41:06. > :41:10.broken. It is only if they don't know they have been signed up, which
:41:10. > :41:15.is the alleged practice in Falkirk. It sounds like you don't have any
:41:15. > :41:22.evidence of people being signed up without their knowledge. What is
:41:22. > :41:27.your take? We are very grateful to Bob for being so interested in the
:41:27. > :41:31.Labour Party! We are wondering what has gone on in Romford. Conservative
:41:31. > :41:35.councillors were complaining about the process by which they had been
:41:35. > :41:41.deselected, talking about Loch abodes. I didn't know the
:41:41. > :41:45.Conservative Party had block votes. This is a waste of police time. The
:41:45. > :41:50.Labour Party has made it clear that if it finds any wrong doing it will
:41:50. > :41:54.deal with it. Ed Miliband has taken decisive action about that in
:41:54. > :42:00.Falkirk, and made it quite clear he's not going to tolerate this.
:42:00. > :42:05.don't you rerun all the selections that have taken place so far, in all
:42:05. > :42:12.those 41 constituencies on the hit list? Then there can be no question
:42:12. > :42:18.of it. That is a big undertaking. am grateful for Bob's suggestion.
:42:18. > :42:23.Where we are finding things wrong, we are taking action. Ed Miliband
:42:23. > :42:27.took swift, decisive action. He did move very quickly on Falkirk.
:42:28. > :42:32.he found out the Conservatives were already on the case. Have you heard
:42:32. > :42:39.from Bernard Hogan-Howe? I have had an acknowledgement. I am not going
:42:39. > :42:43.to tell him how to do his job. Let's say Ed Miliband acted swiftly on
:42:43. > :42:47.this. If we have a piece of legislation going through Parliament
:42:47. > :42:52.at the moment which would enable us to have an opt out rather than an
:42:52. > :42:58.opt in to the political levy. Is he going to be supporting amendments to
:42:58. > :43:02.do that? We will help him if he wants to. Very generous of you.
:43:02. > :43:06.The Mayor launched his vision this week for the road network. It is a
:43:06. > :43:10.strategy he has no money for, and will largely have to be in the
:43:10. > :43:14.mentored by other people. Should we take it seriously?
:43:14. > :43:21.The elephant and Castle roundabout in south London. The capital's most
:43:21. > :43:27.dangerous road junction, and this -- the location of the launch of the
:43:27. > :43:33.road's task force. I go on endlessly about Crossrail, about the tube,
:43:33. > :43:38.about what we are doing about the transport system. The majority of
:43:38. > :43:44.cars are on London's roads. You have to improve the roads. In this
:43:44. > :43:48.instance, that is an investment thought to be in the region of �30
:43:48. > :43:54.billion. 20 mile an hour speed limit in the capital, getting glories of
:43:54. > :43:58.the road at busy times, and making roads nicer to been air. Including
:43:58. > :44:04.plans to put parts of the South Circular in an underground tunnel.
:44:04. > :44:10.Should that happen, this is what London's roads should look like. The
:44:10. > :44:14.first stumbling block is this # Mayor of London only controls
:44:14. > :44:19.around 5% of the capital's roads. The rest are run by local
:44:19. > :44:24.authorities. For this to be a reality, Boris Johnson will be
:44:24. > :44:29.relying on others to do it. Having said that, the councillors were
:44:29. > :44:33.encouraging. This has been an example of the problem road.
:44:33. > :44:37.Elephant and Castle has a huge potential as a regeneration area,
:44:38. > :44:42.but the transport issues have been huge. We have sorted out a fully
:44:42. > :44:47.costed programme. The other challenge will be money. Nobody
:44:47. > :44:50.knows how much the plan will cost, not least the huge project of
:44:50. > :44:55.putting the South Circular in a tunnel. Transport for London are
:44:55. > :45:00.trying to wonder who will foot the bill. Who will benefit from putting
:45:00. > :45:05.it in a tunnel? Probably places like Peckham and Wandsworth. You might
:45:05. > :45:09.expect businesses to be in favour, property values to increase, more
:45:09. > :45:14.development. Maybe there is a flight of that money to be had. We can look
:45:14. > :45:19.at these ideas and work out if they stack up. If we cannot get the money
:45:19. > :45:22.from taxation, it will not happen. How much of it will, is a 20 year
:45:23. > :45:32.plan is going to depend on another generation of people to deliver it.
:45:33. > :45:34.
:45:34. > :45:44.They might have their own ideas. I'm joined by Isabel Dedring, the deputy
:45:44. > :45:45.
:45:45. > :45:55.mayor of London. We are proposing a Silvertown crossing near Blackwall,
:45:55. > :45:59.
:45:59. > :46:05.and the proposal is that that is likely to be tolled but there are
:46:05. > :46:10.many more things we can do to free up space on the road network for
:46:10. > :46:15.pedestrians and cyclists, road safety and those issues. The road
:46:15. > :46:24.task force did recommend using pricing more widely to manage
:46:25. > :46:29.demand, and you agree with that? of the reasons of having that group
:46:29. > :46:33.is that they can be independent, and we do say that charging is a tool we
:46:33. > :46:37.would consider in the long term but at the moment there are many more
:46:37. > :46:44.things we can do in terms of getting more capacity out of the road
:46:44. > :46:49.network. What does the Mayor think of road pricing? He thinks it would
:46:49. > :46:55.be a policy of last resort. Clearly we don't want to charge people if
:46:55. > :46:59.there are other things we can do. The task force, although it is
:46:59. > :47:04.independent, you were involved in it and they think it is important in
:47:04. > :47:12.the future. What about the South circular going underground, is that
:47:12. > :47:18.fanciful? One of the issues with the road network is it has not have the
:47:18. > :47:21.level of ambition compared to the rail network. They have ambitions,
:47:21. > :47:25.but we are saying we need to investigate some of these ideas and
:47:25. > :47:31.look at the ways in which they might be funded. If you look at an example
:47:31. > :47:36.of Hammersmith, putting the flyover underground and freeing up that land
:47:36. > :47:42.in order to lift property values, plant trees, and it can be paid for
:47:42. > :47:46.in part through the property values in that area which could be
:47:46. > :47:53.significant. Is this kite flying in terms of the South circular
:47:53. > :47:58.underground? The cost would be vast. Yes, but it does tend to be
:47:58. > :48:02.expensive, and Crossrail for example has been paid for in large part
:48:02. > :48:06.through contribution from business developers so it shouldn't be any
:48:06. > :48:11.different for the road network in principle. If you look at a place
:48:11. > :48:20.like Hammersmith or the South circular, potentially there is a big
:48:20. > :48:28.land value uplift. TfL is looking at where these things could be
:48:28. > :48:32.relevant, but it is not about putting motorways through the middle
:48:32. > :48:40.of London, it is about making London a nicer place to be and freeing up
:48:40. > :48:44.space on the surface so we are making areas where people live less
:48:44. > :48:50.congested and nicer places to be. People will love that idea but it
:48:50. > :48:58.still comes back to the issue of cost. If you are talking about ten,
:48:58. > :49:01., �20 billion, would you have two toll that to pay for it? In the most
:49:01. > :49:09.recent business plan, we have doubled the amount of funding we are
:49:09. > :49:13.putting into the road network, and that has been protected in the
:49:13. > :49:18.Spending Review, and that is for anything from a total rebuild of
:49:18. > :49:22.Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall, those key locations in London where there
:49:22. > :49:32.is more pressure, but also locations like five ways which are congestion
:49:32. > :49:38.
:49:38. > :49:44.blackspots. Would you toll over ground as well? It is premature to
:49:44. > :49:49.comment on that, but that wouldn't be the intention. But you couldn't
:49:49. > :49:55.rule it out? We would have to do work to understand how this would
:49:55. > :49:58.work, or if it could work at all, but people recognise that because of
:49:58. > :50:03.London's growth, projection is expected to grow significantly and
:50:03. > :50:11.unless we think in those terms, we cannot come up with the right
:50:11. > :50:17.answer. What do you think about tolling, would you be in favour?
:50:17. > :50:22.would have to look at what impact that has on local residents. I don't
:50:23. > :50:29.rule it out, I am open-minded. We have always said that major
:50:29. > :50:34.infrastructure, that is one thing, but I would oppose any attempt at
:50:34. > :50:37.blanket road charging for people across London. What is interesting
:50:37. > :50:42.and worth looking out, there are other things we could do in
:50:42. > :50:45.south-east London for example. One of the reason there is a lot of
:50:45. > :50:52.traffic on the South circular is because a lot of people want to get
:50:52. > :50:57.across to Canary Wharf. There are no links. For a fraction of cost of
:50:57. > :51:02.these schemes, you could extend the DLR and give really good public
:51:02. > :51:06.transport links. Couldn't the money be better spent on improving the
:51:06. > :51:14.flow of traffic in London by doing some of the things Bob Neill has
:51:14. > :51:23.suggested? One of the perils of doing a road strategy is that
:51:23. > :51:25.everybody says what about these roads. Where is the money coming
:51:25. > :51:33.from for your big projects on the roads? I take the point about
:51:33. > :51:40.improving and tolling, but you need some big money upfront. If you look
:51:40. > :51:44.at the Northern line extension, that is paid for almost entirely by third
:51:44. > :51:50.sector funding, so because of the property values and the businesses
:51:50. > :51:56.coming to the area it is not funded by Government grant. What is your
:51:56. > :52:02.response? Firstly no one will pay to sit in a traffic jam so we have got
:52:02. > :52:06.to do something about traffic growth. Whatever we do has to deal
:52:06. > :52:13.with that. On the East Thames river crossings, we did have a plan, one
:52:13. > :52:19.of those is now built, the DLR to Woolwich, and one of the others was
:52:19. > :52:24.the Silvertown link. I don't think it is sensible just to build a road
:52:24. > :52:30.that goes across to Silvertown next to the Blackwall Tunnel. It must
:52:30. > :52:35.increase capacity for public transport if we increase demand for
:52:35. > :52:44.road space on that corridor. I have been calling for the DLR to come
:52:44. > :52:51.across two North Greenwich and that offers up a lot of space. I would
:52:51. > :52:57.take the DLR without the road but not the road without the DLR.
:52:57. > :53:04.doing a lot of work on DLR extension is, on Silvertown specifically. I
:53:04. > :53:09.will look at it in more detail but it is important to say the Mayor is
:53:09. > :53:17.progressing the DLR crossing for this reason. It wasn't even
:53:17. > :53:26.mentioned in a document the Mayor produced for his strategy. Everyone
:53:26. > :53:32.is talking about silver -- Silvertown so we will keep on with
:53:32. > :53:34.this proposal. Thank you. There's been much speculation in
:53:34. > :53:37.recent years that the Government's benefits changes would force the
:53:37. > :53:40.poor out of London. Remember, the Mayor even spoke about Kosovo-style
:53:40. > :53:42.social cleansing. But, could it be that simple market forces and
:53:42. > :53:45.economic growth are doing the same? Jennifer Conway reports.
:53:45. > :53:49.Hoxton in Hackney, possibly the front line in the gentrification of
:53:49. > :53:54.inner London. This part of town has been transformed from working-class
:53:54. > :53:58.East End to a hipster's paradise in not much more than a decade but the
:53:58. > :54:08.residents here fear they could be forced out of London entirely. Most
:54:08. > :54:12.of this will be knocked down to make way for posh flats. This man works
:54:12. > :54:16.and lives in the estate with his wife and children and parents. He
:54:16. > :54:20.has said he will have to leave the family home as it will be
:54:20. > :54:28.demolished. The future of his shop is also uncertain and he has only
:54:28. > :54:33.been given �230,000 for his four bedroom in a London home and he
:54:33. > :54:39.thinks it is worth more. I don't want to move, I want to stay. I
:54:40. > :54:48.don't want to leave my family, I am happy where I am. Local estate
:54:48. > :54:52.agents valued his home at �70,000 higher. In most circumstances the
:54:52. > :54:57.for the council has made does not survive the test of being
:54:58. > :55:03.objectively reasonable. In some cases, we have somebody who is
:55:03. > :55:06.�100,000 out in terms of the value of their property. In other cases,
:55:06. > :55:11.people are being compensated for less than they paid for the flat.
:55:11. > :55:17.This kind of investment will not be welcome if we are taking away
:55:17. > :55:26.people's property so someone else can be wealthier. The council say
:55:26. > :55:30.nothing of the kind is true. This was an expert decision, and that is
:55:30. > :55:35.what we are basing this on. Leaseholders have got their own
:55:35. > :55:39.valuation but that is not independent. On top of that there is
:55:40. > :55:43.these home lost payments that they would get. It is not about changing
:55:43. > :55:49.Hackney, it is about delivering new homes for people who live here
:55:49. > :55:59.already, whether they are leaseholders or tenants.
:55:59. > :56:05.Leaseholders we spoke to have mixed views. I suppose it will improve it.
:56:05. > :56:10.There are lots of green parts about a year. Compared to 20 years ago,
:56:10. > :56:13.Hackney has better schools, more affordable housing, and the Olympic
:56:13. > :56:19.Park but some people are worried these will not be enjoyed by the
:56:19. > :56:22.original people of Hackney. Bob Neill, it is difficult to get that
:56:22. > :56:27.balance between redevelopment and regenerating an area, and
:56:27. > :56:32.accommodating people who have perhaps lived there all their lives
:56:32. > :56:36.in some cases. It is a difficult balance, and one of the issues here
:56:36. > :56:41.seems to revolve around the compensation paid for compulsory
:56:41. > :56:44.purchase, and it will be wrong if people have invested in their
:56:44. > :56:50.property and they lose out. The rules are clear that nobody should
:56:50. > :56:56.be left worse off than they would have been if their property had been
:56:56. > :57:03.-- not been compulsory required. They should get a genuine open
:57:03. > :57:07.market value. It is difficult in an area that has risen in value, the
:57:07. > :57:14.properties that have not been developed, difficult to gauge what
:57:14. > :57:18.the market price would be. Open market speaks for itself because the
:57:18. > :57:28.open market mechanism produces it. My suggestion is that would be a
:57:28. > :57:40.
:57:40. > :57:43.better route than individual one-off valuations. Do you think this sounds
:57:43. > :57:45.like people are wanting to cash in on their properties when they have
:57:45. > :57:48.been offered a deal to be housed off-site when the work is being
:57:48. > :57:51.done, and then have a chance of buying one of these new homes?
:57:51. > :57:53.is an element of bargaining but this should be looked at independently,
:57:53. > :57:55.Bob is right. They should assess what the leaseholders have been paid
:57:55. > :57:58.in this way, but local leaseholders should be complimented for what they
:57:58. > :58:04.are attempting to do because they are guaranteeing people can go
:58:04. > :58:09.back. Last year, the number of social rented starts was 1400 and
:58:09. > :58:16.that is the lowest since the 1920s. It is a disgrace so the council is
:58:16. > :58:19.getting moving on this and it has to be complimented. If householders can
:58:19. > :58:22.go back into these properties, they will not have to pay rent on the
:58:22. > :58:27.rest of the property they go back into which is a very generous
:58:27. > :58:32.arrangement. The local authority is going a long way to make sure they
:58:32. > :58:41.stay part of this scheme. Now it's time for the rest of the political
:58:41. > :58:45.news in 60 seconds. The chair of governors of a school in south-east
:58:45. > :58:52.London claimed expenses for travel from his home in Minorca in Spain.
:58:52. > :58:56.In two months almost �300 was claimed in air and rail fares for
:58:56. > :59:01.him to attend meetings. Green assembly member Jenny Jones says the
:59:01. > :59:04.Metropolitan police have spent almost �4 million policing the
:59:04. > :59:11.Ecuador Embassy since WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took
:59:11. > :59:16.political refuge over 12 months ago. The Boris bikes cost taxpayers �1400
:59:16. > :59:22.for each bike every year, costing taxpayers �11 million in total.
:59:22. > :59:27.Critics have accused the mayor of failing to strike a good enough deal
:59:27. > :59:35.with Barclays. Six female Greenpeace protesters took the aerial route to
:59:35. > :59:38.get their message across when they climbed the Shard. Clapham and New
:59:38. > :59:48.Cross fire stations will stay open after all but with only one fire
:59:48. > :59:54.
:59:54. > :59:57.stories. The police have spent formally in pounds policing the
:59:57. > :00:04.Ecuadorian Embassy since Julian Assange took refuge in the
:00:04. > :00:08.Ecuadorian Embassy a few months ago. Has that been money well spent.
:00:08. > :00:13.It seems a lot of money to place police officers outside the
:00:13. > :00:17.building, but we have an obligation to do that by law. Sometimes,
:00:17. > :00:22.applying the law can be expensive and can force you to do things you
:00:22. > :00:31.would rather not and spend money you would rather not spend. There is a
:00:31. > :00:34.legal obligation, and Julian Assange has gone through the court process.
:00:34. > :00:40.The Ecuadorian government have adopted this line, and it is a pity.
:00:40. > :00:46.But we have to do what is prescribed by law. I am sure if you were
:00:46. > :00:51.talking to the alleged victims of hip crimes, they would want to see
:00:51. > :00:57.him. Do you think the Mayor could get more money out of Berkeley 's as
:00:57. > :01:01.the sponsor to pay for it? I am sure he is alert to what can be done in
:01:01. > :01:08.that sort of situation. I would not try to second-guess that on-air, but
:01:08. > :01:12.I think Boris is pretty good at trying to get people out of it.
:01:12. > :01:15.about the fire stations, the closures? There is going to be one
:01:15. > :01:21.fire station each for Clapham and New Cross. Is that going to be safe
:01:21. > :01:26.enough? I think the proposals to cut fire stations is cuts too far. It
:01:26. > :01:31.would have been fractions of pennies on people's precepts for council tax
:01:31. > :01:41.to keep those fire stations open. I think the public would have voted
:01:41. > :01:44.
:01:44. > :01:47.for that if they had been given the option. Thank you. Back to Andrew.
:01:48. > :01:52.In a moment, we will look ahead to the big stories that will dominate
:01:52. > :01:55.politics next week with our political panel. First, the news.
:01:55. > :01:57.A jury in the United States has acquitted a neighbourhood watch
:01:57. > :02:00.volunteer of shooting dead an unarmed black teenager. George
:02:00. > :02:07.Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in Florida last year but argued that he
:02:07. > :02:09.acted in self-defence. The case has divided opinion in America and the
:02:09. > :02:19.verdict has already prompted some demonstrations, as David Willis
:02:19. > :02:25.reports from Florida. We find George Zimmerman not guilty.
:02:25. > :02:28.A dramatic conclusion to the trial that has captivated and divided this
:02:28. > :02:33.nation in roughly equal measure. George Zimmerman, and neighbourhood
:02:33. > :02:38.watch volunteer, never denied shooting dead and unarmed black
:02:38. > :02:42.teenager called Trayvon Martin, but he said he did so in self defence,
:02:42. > :02:52.and the jury agreed. As happy as I am for George Zimmerman, I am
:02:52. > :02:52.
:02:53. > :02:57.thrilled that this jury kept this tragedy from becoming a travesty.
:02:57. > :03:00.are very, very saddened, but we accept the jury's verdict in this
:03:00. > :03:06.case. Trayvon Martin was walking home when he was spotted by George
:03:06. > :03:09.Zimmerman, who was sitting in his car. Convinced Martin was part of a
:03:09. > :03:16.gang who targeted the local neighbourhood, the prosecution
:03:16. > :03:19.claimed Zimmerman pursued and then provoked Trayvon Martin, as he
:03:19. > :03:24.headed into this private apartment complex. Zimmerman's lawyers said
:03:24. > :03:29.their client was the victim of a vicious assault. There were no
:03:29. > :03:39.witnesses to the confrontation that followed, but neighbours picked up
:03:39. > :03:46.
:03:47. > :03:51.the sound of cries for help, Trayvon Martin was dead. Instead of
:03:51. > :04:00.laying the matter to rest, there is a feared the jury's verdict may only
:04:01. > :04:06.serve to reopen old wounds. A firefighter has died and a second
:04:06. > :04:11.is being treated in hospital after a fire in Manchester City centre. It
:04:11. > :04:16.broke out yesterday afternoon at a hairdressing salon. We can speak to
:04:17. > :04:20.our correspondent, who is there. is nearly 24-hour is since the fire
:04:20. > :04:25.broke out on the other side of that building there. Initially, it seemed
:04:25. > :04:28.fairly routine, but at 8:30pm something happened in there.
:04:29. > :04:34.Possibly an explosion, may be caused by chemicals contained in hair
:04:34. > :04:40.products stored there. Two firefighters had to be rescued. One
:04:40. > :04:44.of them, Stephen Hunt, died in the fire. He was 38 years old, the
:04:44. > :04:49.father of two teenaged children. His colleagues are said to be devastated
:04:50. > :04:52.by his loss. Greater Manchester Police have arrested two 15-year-old
:04:52. > :04:56.girls on suspicion of manslaughter in connection with this fire.
:04:56. > :04:59.Thank you. Police in Northern Ireland say seven officers have been
:04:59. > :05:02.injured in North Belfast, during a second night of violence. Trouble
:05:02. > :05:05.flared when police attempted to enforce a decision to ban an Orange
:05:05. > :05:08.Order march from passing the republican Ardoyne area of the City.
:05:08. > :05:16.An extra 400 officers from around the UK have been drafted into the
:05:16. > :05:22.province following the clashes. That's it's now. There will be more
:05:22. > :05:26.news on BBC One at 6:35pm. Now, back to Andrew.
:05:27. > :05:32.Thank you. It is the last week before the end of the summer term
:05:32. > :05:39.for days, Nick and dead. It will be a busy one, as we discover in The
:05:40. > :05:45.Week Ahead. So, Janan, Lynton Crosby, the Guru
:05:45. > :05:49.of elections for Mr Cameron is making headlines in the Observer
:05:49. > :05:55.this morning because of his links with the tobacco lobby, as a
:05:55. > :05:59.lobbyist in another job. It is clear Labour are out to get him. They are,
:05:59. > :06:02.and they have some circumstantial evidence to play with. The
:06:02. > :06:07.government has changed its line on packaging since Lynton Crosby
:06:07. > :06:11.arrived. I still think he will survive, given that the evidence is
:06:11. > :06:17.not more than circumstantial. It would be a calamity for David
:06:17. > :06:20.Cameron to lose, not just because of the short-term, moral embarrassment,
:06:20. > :06:25.but because he has really improved their political performance. The
:06:25. > :06:29.Tories have become much sharper over the last few months. If they have
:06:29. > :06:37.the chance of avoiding a shabby, nebulous election campaign like in
:06:37. > :06:42.2010, they need Lynton Crosby. At the moment, he is part-time. So the
:06:42. > :06:46.Tories are desperate to keep him. would be absolutely amazed if there
:06:46. > :06:49.was any real evidence that Lynton Crosby has lobbied the Prime
:06:49. > :06:54.Minister on the issue of plain packets for cigarettes. I think he
:06:54. > :06:59.has far bigger fish to fry, and is far too smart to make such a silly
:06:59. > :07:08.error. I think there is probably a lobbying scandal somewhere about the
:07:08. > :07:12.government's position on this issue, and it is probably a wider one on
:07:12. > :07:17.how the tobacco companies have gone -- have got to ministers about it.
:07:17. > :07:22.We know he has spoken to the Prime Minister about this idea of getting
:07:22. > :07:27.the barnacles off the boat. Just focus on the economy and Ed
:07:27. > :07:31.Miliband's weaknesses, and maybe things like plain packaging for
:07:31. > :07:39.cigarettes is a barnacle that should be got off the boat. This doesn't
:07:39. > :07:43.pass the smell test. It doesn't look good. In his early days, you had
:07:43. > :07:51.David Cameron - a touchy, CD new leader. Now you have someone running
:07:51. > :07:55.his election campaign who doesn't do that sort of campaign. I tend to
:07:55. > :07:59.think people win and lose elections for much deeper reasons than who
:07:59. > :08:04.they have hired to help them out on that campaign. A big decision will
:08:04. > :08:10.be taken in the next election Ash Mack who is best to run the
:08:10. > :08:17.economy. It doesn't matter if Lynton Crosby is here or not. Will we get a
:08:17. > :08:22.reshuffle next week? I think so. If I had written about it, it wouldn't
:08:22. > :08:28.have happened! It is a junior level reshuffle, not Cabinet Minister
:08:28. > :08:35.level. I think the key theme of it will be the promotion of women. I
:08:35. > :08:38.know the Prime Minister is very keen to put a number of women to perhaps
:08:38. > :08:44.even Minister of State level positions, quite senior positions,
:08:44. > :08:51.to get them in place to put them in Cabinet next time round. Labour's
:08:51. > :08:56.funding problems, or links with the unions... It started in Falkirk. The
:08:56. > :09:00.story has now moved to the Tory fat cats and it isn't about Labour and
:09:00. > :09:06.the unions any more. I thought Ed Miliband was very impressive this
:09:06. > :09:10.week. It is the first time in recent months he has shaped events, rather
:09:10. > :09:14.than responding to them from a defensive positions. I worry that he
:09:14. > :09:17.keeps doing good things that he should have done three years ago.
:09:17. > :09:22.Confronting the unions will work for him now politically, but it would
:09:22. > :09:27.have worked much better if he had done it from a position of strength,
:09:27. > :09:35.after becoming Labour leader. back up in the polls. That is more
:09:35. > :09:39.like it in mid-term. Yes. It fell down to about 6% in recent weeks.
:09:40. > :09:43.What I have just said about the unions is also true on his
:09:43. > :09:49.confrontation on austerity. It would have been much more effective if he
:09:49. > :09:57.had done it back in September 2010. It is reminiscent of the great Phil
:09:57. > :10:03.Collins line -- the speech writer, that is. The definition of a brown
:10:03. > :10:10.night is a somebody who becomes a Blairite too late! We waited for
:10:10. > :10:13.some time, and we made this big move on union funding. But we shouldn't
:10:13. > :10:17.underestimate the significance of what he has done. David Miliband was
:10:17. > :10:26.talking about it this morning, saying it was going to happen.
:10:26. > :10:32.want to play you a clip. Is my right honourable friend aware that after
:10:32. > :10:36.yesterday's surrenders of powers by the Home Office to the European
:10:36. > :10:41.Union, by bringing the European Court of Justice in to the arrest
:10:41. > :10:45.warrant, the Commission has welcomed it as pragmatic? Has pragmatism
:10:45. > :10:54.overtaken the Prime Minister's popular desire to repay to the
:10:54. > :10:57.powers? I would say to my right honourable friend that the Home
:10:57. > :11:04.Secretary's decision yesterday represents the repatriated to the UK
:11:04. > :11:10.of 98 powers. That is a massive transfer of power back here to the
:11:10. > :11:15.UK, which I think he should welcome. We have this issue of competencies
:11:15. > :11:21.coming up this week, of moving back from Brussels to London, or sending
:11:21. > :11:26.some back from London to Brussels. It is an example of the insatiable
:11:26. > :11:35.appetite of the Tory backbenchers on this issue. It was a shame we
:11:35. > :11:40.couldn't see Theresa May's the Home Secretary expression on this. This
:11:40. > :11:46.has got everybody hot under the collar. There are all sorts of
:11:46. > :11:50.amendments going down. It goes to the heart, I think, of who the Tory
:11:50. > :11:54.backbenchers feel runs the country. As we enter into the summer, I would
:11:55. > :11:58.suggest that if we had headed into the summer last week, we would say
:11:58. > :12:02.that Labour is going into the summer in the doldrums and the Tories with
:12:02. > :12:08.a spring in their step. Not quite clear that this is the situation
:12:08. > :12:11.now. I don't think the reshuffle will be momentous enough to change
:12:11. > :12:17.that in the short term. However much trouble Labour are in at the moment,
:12:17. > :12:20.they can just count on Europe cropping up. This issue of Justice
:12:21. > :12:25.and home affairs is interesting in the longer term. There are people in
:12:25. > :12:30.number ten who believe that when it comes to the renegotiation of
:12:30. > :12:34.membership in 2017, or whenever it happens, the thing to do is win
:12:34. > :12:39.backs Justice, home affairs and the ECHR, because that is what annoys
:12:39. > :12:44.the public, rather than the more difficult economic question.
:12:44. > :12:50.Labour over the worst of it? Yes, and Labour has pulled it back this
:12:50. > :12:54.week. There is a reason why Jacob Rees-Mogg was so significant there.
:12:54. > :12:57.When the chips are down, David Cameron wants to stay in the
:12:57. > :13:03.European Union, and a lot of his party do not like that. Are you
:13:03. > :13:06.going to have a good summer? Hope so. That's all for this week.